Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison
ORDER ADOPTING 60 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/17/2016. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CORCORAN STATE PRISON et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 59, 60)
Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the assigned
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On May 20, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge screened the third amended complaint
and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on
some of his claims and that the rest of his claims be dismissed. (Doc. No. 60.) The findings and
recommendation were served that same day and allowed thirty days for plaintiff to file objections.
(Id.) After receiving a sixty-day extension of time, plaintiff has not filed any objections. (Doc.
Nos. 61, 62.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As the magistrate
judge noted, liberally construed, plaintiff’s third amended complaint appears to state cognizable
claims against defendants LVN Reynoso and LVN Teran for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s
serious medical needs. (See Doc. No. 60 at 19–20.) However, because those claims are not
related to the other claims on which plaintiff will proceed in this action, they should be dismissed.
(Id.) To the extent plaintiff wishes to assert those claims against defendants LVN Reynoso and
LVN Teran, plaintiff is advised to file each of them with the court in separate complaints.
1. The May 20, 2016 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 60), are adopted in full;
2. This action for damages shall proceed on the following claims in plaintiff’s third
a. against defendants Dr. Mahoney, Dr. Blanchard, Urbano LCSW, and Prince
LCSW for deliberate indifference of plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation
of the Eighth Amendment;
b. against defendants Dr. Blanchard and Prince LCSW for retaliation in violation of
the First Amendment;
c. against defendant guards Cordova, Torres, and J. Gomez for excessive use of force
and regarding the conditions of his confinement in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, and against Sgt. Holland for his knowledge and acquiescence in
defendant guard Torres’ use of excessive force; and
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 17, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?